Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Whether daughter can be denied right in property on ground

that property is sold subsequent to coming in to force of


amendment Act 2005?

The plaintiffs themselves have produced Exs. P1 to 3,


certified copies of the Sale Deeds dated 8.2.2002
executed in favour of defendants 5 to 7 in respect of a
portion of item No. 3 of the plaint schedule. However,
Ex. P4, the certified copy of the sale deed dated
25.2.2009 came into existence subsequent to 20th
December 2004, as such the said sale is not saved
by proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the
Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, the Court below
has rightly ignored the said sale deed and granted a
share to the plaintiffs in respect of the property
covered under Ex. P4.
40. By virtue of Exs. P1 to P3 which are registered
documents, the properties sold thereunder had gone out
of the joint family as on the day Section 6 was
substituted. Therefore, the plaintiffs who acquired right to
claim a share with their brother Mahadevappa as
coparceners because of amended Section 6, are not
entitled to any share or interest in the said property.
41. Unfortunately, the trial Court without properly
appreciating this legal position, proceeded on the
assumption that the defendants 4 to 7 have not
contested the matter; the said sale was not for legal
necessity and benefit of estate and therefore contended
that the plaintiffs have a right in the said properties. In
view of Section 6 proviso sub-section (1), the
question of legal necessity and benefit of estate
should not have gone into by the trial Court. This is
not a case where an alienation is challenged on
those grounds and therefore, the Judgment and
Decree of the trial Court to this extent requires to be
set aside. Therefore, point No. 3 is answered partly in
the affirmative holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to a
share only in the property sold under Ex. P4 and not the
one sold under Exs. P1 to P3.
Equivalent Citation: AIR2016Kant4,
2015(4)KCCR3091
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Regular First Appeal No. 58 of 2014
Decided On: 07.09.2015
Lokamani and Ors. Vs. Mahadevamma and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:N. Kumar and G. Narendra, JJ.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen